Trump, RNC Lose Bid To Disqualify Non-Postmarked Nevada Ballots Received After Election Day

Photo of an absentee ballot in a mail-box. Atlanta, GA- SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 (Adobe Stock)
Photo of an absentee ballot in a mail-box. Atlanta, GA- SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 (Adobe Stock)

In a win for voters, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the state’s policy of counting mail-in ballots without postmarks received up to three days after Election Day this November. 

“If a voter properly and timely casts their vote by mailing their ballots before or on the day of the election, and through a post office omission the ballot is not postmarked, it would go against public policy to discount that properly cast vote,” the order read.

The Trump campaign and Republicans filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar (D) and local election officials in May challenging Nevada’s policy of counting mail-in ballots missing a postmark that are received up to three days after Election Day. They claimed that the policy would unfairly dilute legally cast votes and harm Republicans, who vote by mail at lower rates than Democrats. 

On Aug. 2, a trial court rejected the Republicans’ attempt to block the policy for this election. Five days later, they appealed to the state’s highest court. 

Under Nevada law, election officials can count ballots that are received by the third day following the election if the “date of the postmark cannot be determined.” The Trump campaign and Republicans argued that this suggests a postmark must be present even if it is not legible. 

During oral argument in the Nevada Supreme Court on Oct. 8, justices questioned why a ballot without a postmark that arrived after Election Day should be treated differently than a similar ballot with a smudged or torn postmark. 

A lawyer for pro-voting organizations that intervened in the case stated that non-postmarked ballots are a very small subset of ballots and that they lack a postmark due to post office error through no fault of the voter’s. 

“It would be a crazy way to commit voter fraud,” he said.

Two of the justices disagreed that Nevada law allows non-postmarked ballots to be counted after Election Day, but concurred that disqualifying those ballots this November would be problematic on other grounds.

Read the order here.

Updated Oct. 28 to reflect what was written in the order.

Last update, Aug. 6

The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) have lost yet another attempt to weaken mail-in voting ahead of the November election. This time, a state court judge has denied the campaign’s request to temporarily block Nevada from counting timely cast ballots received after Election Day that do not have a postmark. 

In Nevada, county officials count ballots without a postmark received up to three days after Election Day and ballots that are postmarked up to four days after Election Day. The Trump campaign challenged the state’s non postmarked ballots policy arguing that it unfairly dilutes legally cast votes and disproportionately harms Republicans who vote by mail significantly less than Democrats. 

The court declined to grant Republicans’ request to block the counting of non postmarked ballots received after Election Day. The lawsuit will continue but it is unlikely there will be any changes ahead of the 2024 general election. A written order was issued shortly after the Friday decision in which the judge held that “finally, and independently, Plaintiffs’ allegations and evidence of irreparable harm are inadequate in any event.” 

This ruling marks the third big loss for the RNC in the Silver State as it comes just weeks after the RNC lost a federal lawsuit attempting to challenge the state’s mail-in ballot receipt deadline. In June, national Republicans also lost their attempt to remove voters from Nevada’s voter rolls. Currently, according to Democracy Docket’s database, the Trump campaign and RNC are responsible for nine active anti-voting lawsuits across the country. 

Learn more about the case here.

Read the order here.

This story was updated Aug. 6 to reflect what was in the written order issued Aug. 6.